ENT Gaming

Hi folks,

I'd like to draw attention to some functions of the game that do not make sense and are causing quite a bit of disharmony.

#1. Votekick

The dependency on your opponent to votekick a rule breaker on your team does not make sense. While they are obligated to do so, it is a conflict of interest to have to require any more than the other 2 players on the allied team to agree. Too many times have I seen people ignore this rule and quite often it is too much trouble to bother reporting them.

#2. Obligation to draw

This is a huge problem. While the rules state there is no obligation to draw, honorable players will do so if there is a leaver on the other team during round 1. There should be an obligation to draw on round 1 if this happens, particularly if it was caused by a malfunction such as a desync. I've seen too much infighting because of dishonorable play.

There SHOULD be an obligation to draw if there is a desync on level 1. It is not their allies fault and they should not be penalized. The leaver should be auto-banned. Just last game the other team complained the guy kept leaving. If that be the case how can they continue to rejoin???

Continuing to allow dishonorable play is what attracts trolls.

#3. Votebalance

It should not require 6 votes to pass a votebalance motion, only 3.

All too often I've seen a ridiculously stacked team where the bot is stuck not filling a game due to this; any intelligent player will leave before it starts until fish fill the other side. While some honorable players will support the vote balance, since it is requiring 6/6 votes it rarely passes. There is nothing democratic about requiring 100% of the vote.

What that says is it only takes one toxic person to ruin a game or harmony or a desire for a balancing shuffle.

This needs to change.

@GEN_Schwarzkopf Moved to suggestions.

GEN_Schwarzkopf wrote:#1. Votekick

The dependency on your opponent to votekick a rule breaker on your team does not make sense. While they are obligated to do so, it is a conflict of interest to have to require any more than the other 2 players on the allied team to agree. Too many times have I seen people ignore this rule and quite often it is too much trouble to bother reporting them.

The votekick obligation is enforced to opponents prior to allies for several reasons. One of them being, an allied team could conduct their own votekick based on overall player-skill and simply lie to the opponents when said player is kicked. Obviously, they'd be violating a rule themselves but if it's a mutual team agreement then there's no saying how many people could begin a chain like such and get away with it.

Following that, the obligation of an opponent is very minimal on general investigative endeavors. Assuming you've read our rules, you would know that following a votekick initiation, the player must clearly explain what x is doing and why the votekick was initiated prior to such. For instance, in DotA, if someone is -afk and a votekick is started then other opponents can type -afk and see such timer. If they're resetting the afk-timer, a couple of minutes down the line can be self conclusive based on presence/chatlogs. It's not too difficult a task nor requirement to put on all participating parties of the game, this way we ensure that the votekick command is neither abused nor taken lightly.

As for the last remark, should any allies that are able to witness clear signs of game ruin yet refuse to kick a player on legitimate grounds, you can submit a report to them for refusing to votekick said ruiner and allowing the game to continuously remain sabotaged. Whether you've to find that "too much trouble" or not is your choice, but we the ENT staff can't do much beyond that. If you've any suggestions on this matter, feel free to propose some.

GEN_Schwarzkopf wrote:#2. Obligation to draw

This is a huge problem. While the rules state there is no obligation to draw, honorable players will do so if there is a leaver on the other team during round 1. There should be an obligation to draw on round 1 if this happens, particularly if it was caused by a malfunction such as a desync. I've seen too much infighting because of dishonorable play.

There SHOULD be an obligation to draw if there is a desync on level 1. It is not their allies fault and they should not be penalized. The leaver should be auto-banned. Just last game the other team complained the guy kept leaving. If that be the case how can they continue to rejoin???

Continuing to allow dishonorable play is what attracts trolls.

This has been discussed before and ultimately it's been mutually agreed upon the staff that no obligation of !draw will come to light. Players have the right to play the game they are a-part of, and while an "honor system" might take into play every so now and then, you the players of said game are making a choice to end the game and proceed to another. If some players choose to stay and keep playing, they've the right to do so.

We won't put penalties on players, be it under "obvious" circumstances or not, simply because they choose to keep playing. If you've to witness any leavers be it by desync or not, you may consult the other players of the game and see what they say.

GEN_Schwarzkopf wrote:#3. Votebalance

It should not require 6 votes to pass a votebalance motion, only 3.

All too often I've seen a ridiculously stacked team where the bot is stuck not filling a game due to this; any intelligent player will leave before it starts until fish fill the other side. While some honorable players will support the vote balance, since it is requiring 6/6 votes it rarely passes. There is nothing democratic about requiring 100% of the vote.

What that says is it only takes one toxic person to ruin a game or harmony or a desire for a balancing shuffle.

Votebalance is an already rare occurrence in the majority of ENT games, and while at times you may not enjoy a rather hefty competition, we won't deter players away from playing whom they choose to play with. Again, this most likely falls under the "honor system" that's been mentioned above but we've the staff no right to allow 3 players to come a game changing decision like such. If you would like fair games, you will need a majority of the players to come to agreement.

Thank you for your time explaining and considering these ideas Merex.

1. Votekick: Your explanation makes sense to me; I've submitted the rule violators here, which you have processed. Many thanks.

2. Conditions for Obligation to draw (at level 1):

To be very clear I don't seek to obligate draw except for level 1 due to faulty loading or desync.

The right not to play out a game ruined at level 1 by a technical issue should supersede some selfish opponent's 'right' to exploit that for some quick ELO. At level 1, this is actually giving the enemy the right to exploit other players. The wrong people are being penalized. This sense of injustice is what causes some of the worst problems. The lack of obligation to draw assumes collusion of the other players.

You've seen even in the last ban request I sent in the reason why they trolled was because they were denied a level 1 draw; which seemed unfair to them. (Not that I advocate for their behavior after the fact.) The simple truth is this ability to exploit a ruined game for ELO is an issue that needs further consideration. -- ONLY for level 1.

Under what conditions would you obligate a level 1 draw?

3. Would staff consider a 4/6 vote balance pass function? (That would be majority of players in agreement.)

- Rob

I just can't see us implementing either of these right now.

The obligation of draw is never ideal, not even for circumstances like the one mentioned. If anything, should any issues pertaining to an increase of desyncs/leaves happen on level 1/first minutes of game, we can re-visit this and potentially add an auto-draw system but do keep in mind we've an autoban system that will penalize players for such which is a working/alternative solution to the matter. (For leaves, anyways)

Right now, we won't increase/decrease any player votes within lobby. Vote-balance in specific is something that's not priority as people have the rights to play with whom they choose. (Friends, fellow teammates etc.)